dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1274
share rss forum feed


SadatTek

@rogers.com

TSI Marc - Please Amend Your Home Phone Offering

Marc,

I have been attempting for over 9 months to have my Bell POTS line transferred over to Teksavvy. Marc, I WANT to be a customer. For months we had no clear explanation of why these transfers could not be completed. Once it was explained the matter was re-obstruficated by you and your staff claiming that the stop sell would be lifted "soon". That basically has been the party line since September.

Once again I have attempted to transfer my service from Bell to Teksavvy POTS and once again I get the same response of the last 9 months. Fine, if you can't do it, you can't do it. You should by all rights put up notification that existing Bell POTS customers are not eligible for transfers, period. This would allow me and others to quit wasting our time. Fan-Bois - No, I don't want TekTalk - end of discussion on that.

Respectfully,

A once hopeful customer



TSI Pierre
Baby, Wanna see what 300Gigs looks like?
Premium
join:2011-09-23
Chatham, ON

Hi SadaTek,

Yes you are correct we are not in a position as of yet to offer POTS service just yet. We are looking into ways we can offer this again in the future for all clients. Would you be able to PM me or email SM@ teksavvy.com and we can look into this further for you.
--
TSI Pierre - TekSavvy Solutions Inc.
Chief Operating Officer


MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to SadatTek

Port your Bell number to voip.ms, then port it to TSI.



Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7

said by MaynardKrebs:

Port your Bell number to voip.ms, then port it to TSI.

 
Some folks have posted that even doing THAT will not work, if it was originally a Bell number.

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4

Time for a CCTS complaint then.


HeadSpinning
MNSi Internet

join:2005-05-29
Windsor, ON
kudos:5

said by MaynardKrebs:

Time for a CCTS complaint then.

A complaint against who? If a company chooses not to offer a retail service, what harm has been done to the end user?
--
MNSi Internet - »www.mnsi.net

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4

said by HeadSpinning:

said by MaynardKrebs:

Time for a CCTS complaint then.

A complaint against who? If a company chooses not to offer a retail service, what harm has been done to the end user?

Why Bell, of course. for refusing to allow porting out of the number to the 'carrier' of the customer's choice. Unless our omnipotent CRTC has judged in their infinite wisdom that incumbents can do that.

Where's my lube when I need it?

HeadSpinning
MNSi Internet

join:2005-05-29
Windsor, ON
kudos:5

said by MaynardKrebs:

Why Bell, of course. for refusing to allow porting out of the number to the 'carrier' of the customer's choice. Unless our omnipotent CRTC has judged in their infinite wisdom that incumbents can do that.

Where's my lube when I need it?

That is only when you're going from one carrier to another. In this case, since the underlying carrier is still Bell, those rules do not apply.
--
MNSi Internet - »www.mnsi.net


HiVolt
Premium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:21
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·TekSavvy Cable

said by HeadSpinning:

That is only when you're going from one carrier to another. In this case, since the underlying carrier is still Bell, those rules do not apply.

But if the user has ported out his Bell number to another provider (non bell reselling), and then wishes to go back to POTS with TSI, why is that not allowed, why is that customer punished for Bell's anti competitive nature since this number somehow belongs to Bell.
--
F**K THE NHL. Go Blue Jays 2013!!!

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4

Bingo.

Does Bell somehow hold 'rights' to a number in perpetuity?
ie. port to a 3rd-party for a day, 100 days, or a 1000 years and Bell still can refuse a port to TSI?


MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4

1 edit
reply to HeadSpinning

said by HeadSpinning:

said by MaynardKrebs:

Time for a CCTS complaint then.

A complaint against who? If a company chooses not to offer a retail service, what harm has been done to the end user?

You're right - this isn't CCTS case.
It's a case for a formal complaint/action with the CRTC

Telecommunications Act - S.C. 1993, c. 38 (Section 27)
(2) No Canadian carrier shall, in relation to the provision of a telecommunications service or the charging of a rate for it, unjustly discriminate or give an undue or unreasonable preference toward any person, including itself, or subject any person to an undue or unreasonable disadvantage.

A 'consumer friendly' CRTC would see this as not a Bell-TSI transaction, but as a pair of transactions ..... a Bell-consumer and a consumer-TSI transaction with simply some co-ordination issues (the porting actions each of the companies must do upon instruction from the consumer - either directly from the consumer or his/her duly appointed agent, ie. the 'winning provider').

The phrase "any person" in 27(2) clearly includes the consumer being subjected to undue & unreasonable disadvantage - which is not permitted.

HeadSpinning
MNSi Internet

join:2005-05-29
Windsor, ON
kudos:5
reply to HiVolt

said by HiVolt:

But if the user has ported out his Bell number to another provider (non bell reselling), and then wishes to go back to POTS with TSI, why is that not allowed, why is that customer punished for Bell's anti competitive nature since this number somehow belongs to Bell.

I'm sure if you wanted to go from another provider back to Bell, they would welcome you with open arms, but if you're going to a Bell service re-sold by another company, there other issues to be aware of.

For example, what if Bell provided an incentive to the wholesale service provider to bring them new customers or conversions from cable, but did not offer that incentive when the customer was coming from Bell? What if instead of an incentive, there were a penalty for switching Bell or previous Bell customers?

The terms of wholesale re-sold phone lines are not regulated by the CRTC. This is a commercial arrangement between Bell and the wholesale partner, and agreed to beforehand.
--
MNSi Internet - »www.mnsi.net


HiVolt
Premium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:21
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·TekSavvy Cable

said by HeadSpinning:

The terms of wholesale re-sold phone lines are not regulated by the CRTC. This is a commercial arrangement between Bell and the wholesale partner, and agreed to beforehand.

The question is then, why were they porting Bell numbers for a long time, then all of a sudden early last year, boom, stop sell, labelled as temporary, has dragged on and to me looks like its permanent.
--
F**K THE NHL. Go Blue Jays 2013!!!

HeadSpinning
MNSi Internet

join:2005-05-29
Windsor, ON
kudos:5
reply to MaynardKrebs

said by MaynardKrebs:

Bingo.

Does Bell somehow hold 'rights' to a number in perpetuity?
ie. port to a 3rd-party for a day, 100 days, or a 1000 years and Bell still can refuse a port to TSI?

Bell can only refuse to port a number OUT from their network in some very specific circumstances (suspended service, disconnected line).

Let's be clear here - TSI is not asking for a number to be ported to TSI.
--
MNSi Internet - »www.mnsi.net

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4

said by HeadSpinning:

said by MaynardKrebs:

Bingo.

Does Bell somehow hold 'rights' to a number in perpetuity?
ie. port to a 3rd-party for a day, 100 days, or a 1000 years and Bell still can refuse a port to TSI?

Bell can only refuse to port a number OUT from their network in some very specific circumstances (suspended service, disconnected line).

Let's be clear here - TSI is not asking for a number to be ported to TSI.

I understand clearly - the consumer is asking TSI as his/her agent to port the number from Bell's billing system to TSI's billing system. Please re-read my post above which was edited to add Telecom Act 27(2) references.

With Blais as Chairman, we are allegedly having the CRTC place more emphasis on the consumer and the promotion of competition. This matter seems to clearly fall in that bucket.


creed3020
Premium
join:2006-04-26
Kitchener, ON
kudos:2
reply to SadatTek

I have a referee who is eager to switch their Bell POTS to TSI so +1.

They too do not want to go the VOIP route as they are in a rural area with low speeds on their DSL line.


HeadSpinning
MNSi Internet

join:2005-05-29
Windsor, ON
kudos:5
reply to MaynardKrebs

said by MaynardKrebs:

I understand clearly - the consumer is asking TSI as his/her agent to port the number from Bell's billing system to TSI's billing system. Please re-read my post above which was edited to add Telecom Act 27(2) references.

With Blais as Chairman, we are allegedly having the CRTC place more emphasis on the consumer and the promotion of competition. This matter seems to clearly fall in that bucket.

"Porting" in the terms of the Local Competition decision (97-8) specifically means Local Number Portability, not change of billing responsibility.
--
MNSi Internet - »www.mnsi.net


Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed
reply to MaynardKrebs

said by MaynardKrebs:

said by HeadSpinning:

said by MaynardKrebs:

Time for a CCTS complaint then.

A complaint against who? If a company chooses not to offer a retail service, what harm has been done to the end user?

Why Bell, of course. for refusing to allow porting out of the number to the 'carrier' of the customer's choice. Unless our omnipotent CRTC has judged in their infinite wisdom that incumbents can do that.

Where's my lube when I need it?

If this is the issue i remember Marc or Gabe confirming TSI has acknowledged it's them not bell.


Teddy Boom
k kudos Received
Premium
join:2007-01-29
Toronto, ON
kudos:20

1 edit
reply to MaynardKrebs

said by MaynardKrebs:

Does Bell somehow hold 'rights' to a number in perpetuity?
ie. port to a 3rd-party for a day, 100 days, or a 1000 years and Bell still can refuse a port to TSI?

Bell has no obligation to offer POTs service to Teksavvy at all. Teksavvy and Bell have come to a business to business agreement. Since there is currently no government regulation controlling what that agreement can contain, Bell is able to require whatever they want in it. It is all subject to interpretation and practices on the ground of course. That's how Teksavvy was able to exceed the agreement and sign up more number ports than they were supposed to for a while.

Last time I was involved in this discussion at DSLR I suggested a waiting list:
»Re: Teksavvy - Please Stop Telling Us That POTS is Available

The result of that suggestion (or at least the next development) was that wholesalers and resellers were told they couldn't sell POTs service at all any more

Edit: here's the latest official word:
»Re: C'mon TekSavvy - Bring back your POTS offering
--
electronicsguru.ca


pots

@teksavvy.com
reply to SadatTek

so the stop sell is only for porting a bell number to TSI ?

if I get a new number for pots with TSI and forget about my bell number then it is good to sell ?



Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7
reply to MaynardKrebs

said by MaynardKrebs:

said by HeadSpinning:

....Let's be clear here - TSI is not asking for a number to be ported to TSI.

 
I understand clearly - the consumer is asking TSI as his/her agent to port the number from Bell's billing system to TSI's billing system. Please re-read my post above which was edited to add Telecom Act 27(2) references.

With Blais as Chairman, we are allegedly having the CRTC place more emphasis on the consumer and the promotion of competition.

This matter seems to clearly fall in that bucket.

 
I agree that it belongs there, but quick, hurry up and drop it, as Blais' bucket runneth over any time now !

But Mister Dreidel-Head is quite correct - We should not be calling this exercise 'Porting', as it is only an 'Accounting Reassignment' of a Bell number's billing.

If, OTOH, TSI asked for same said Bell number to be moved to their TekTalk (VoIP) service, that WOULD constitute Porting, as I understand things.

So everyone, Please PLEASE PLEASE stop referring to moving your number to TSI's Home Phone service as Porting, unless the number in question was ORIGINALLY issued by a phone provider other than Bell.

koreyb
Open the Canadian Market NOW

join:2005-01-08
East York, ON
Reviews:
·VMedia
·Rogers Hi-Speed
reply to SadatTek

IF TSI was to transfer your number to their VOIP Service, then back to TSI's Bell POTS service, this should be a long way around the Bell issue... Bell should not have the right to STOP transfers from other providers to TSI or Bell no matter who invented the number to start with. If it's Technically possible, then they should not have a right to refuse.

I agree though, at this point I think TSI should just post they will not be accepting transfers from BELL at this time instead of giving some false hope, as this has not being dealt with in a timely fashion. It's past the ridiculous point now.



Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed

said by koreyb:

IF TSI was to transfer your number to their VOIP Service, then back to TSI's Bell POTS service, this should be a long way around the Bell issue... Bell should not have the right to STOP transfers from other providers to TSI or Bell no matter who invented the number to start with. If it's Technically possible, then they should not have a right to refuse.

Once again, is this not something Gabe or Marc both confirmed was THEIR doing? I'm pretty sure it was both of them who said this isn't a Bell issue, it's a TSI issue.

koreyb
Open the Canadian Market NOW

join:2005-01-08
East York, ON
Reviews:
·VMedia
·Rogers Hi-Speed

1 edit
reply to SadatTek

No offence to any TSI people, but so far after all this time, this has been nothing but talk, and very less than transparent reasons behind it. I understand the need to keep the cards close to the chest, but the reasons why they can't do this, haven't been honest or open.

If It's Bell, (and MOST people who want POTS are Bell customers to start with lets face it) Why bother even having the service? Is it worth it? I think this is why people like YAK and others have dropped their resold POTS offering.



Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7
reply to Tx

said by Tx:

....is this not something Gabe or Marc both confirmed was THEIR doing ?

I'm pretty sure it was both of them who said this isn't a Bell issue - it's a TSI issue.

 
Don't ask me in which thread it was posted, but MY feeling is that an internal Bell memo reached Marc's desk, and spoke of increased cost to TSI from Bell for hosting the resold numbers (and/or a quota limit), and that TSI then chose not to offer them any more if the margin was too tight.

However TSI did not explain it that way to their own customer-base.

TSI also now has TekTalk to promote, and wouldn't YOU want to promote that if YOU were TSI ?

Think about it like this :

WE want this service because it will cost us less money than dealing directly with Bell, even if Bell had no BS and just higher prices.

Each of Bell and TSI will make less if we CAN choose this service [at the previously established price-point] - Bell less than from a retail customer and TSI less than from a TekTalk account, so it is not in EITHER of their best financial interests to actively promote it. - However neither of them wants to 'Man-Up' and explain it to us that way.

BTW, personally, I'm OK with VoIP (though from another, somewhat more established provider).


Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed

said by Davesnothere:

said by Tx:

....is this not something Gabe or Marc both confirmed was THEIR doing ?

I'm pretty sure it was both of them who said this isn't a Bell issue - it's a TSI issue.

 
Don't ask me in which thread it was posted, but MY feeling is that an internal Bell memo reached Marc's desk, and spoke of increased cost to TSI from Bell for hosting the resold numbers (and/or a quota limit), and that TSI then chose not to offer them any more if the margin was too tight.

However TSI did not explain it that way to their own customer-base.

TSI also now has TekTalk to promote, and wouldn't YOU want to promote that if YOU were TSI ?

Think about it like this :

WE want this service because it will cost us less money than dealing directly with Bell, even if Bell had no BS and just higher prices.

Each of Bell and TSI will make less if we CAN choose this service [at the previously established price-point] - Bell less than from a retail customer and TSI less than from a TekTalk account, so it is not in EITHER of their best financial interests to actively promote it. - However neither of them wants to 'Man-Up' and explain it to us that way.

BTW, personally, I'm OK with VoIP (though from another, somewhat more established provider).

To be honest with you, this is something i was thinking as well... why am i going to sell two different phone services (one mine one resold at a tiny profit).

THat said, i agree i'm ok with VOIP. I use voipdiscount and have for over 6 years now.


Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed
reply to koreyb

said by koreyb:

No offence to any TSI people, but so far after all this time, this has been nothing but talk, and very less than transparent reasons behind it. I understand the need to keep the cards close to the chest, but the reasons why they can't do this, haven't been honest or open.

If It's Bell, (and MOST people who want POTS are Bell customers to start with lets face it) Why bother even having the service? Is it worth it? I think this is why people like YAK and others have dropped their resold POTS offering.

Absolutely. The POTS thing has been one of the most puzzling things from TSI since they began. It's been the least transparent thing they've done. Obviously as you said some cards need to stay close to the chest, but something that has gone in secret this long with just a "One day" type comments as to it's return is a head scratcher.